It's not any more racist than it is classist to consider people's economic backgrounds.

Click to expand...

I find it fascinating and quite telling, actually. I don't think a single mind was changed in this thread one way or the other...I don't even think that there was much thought provoked. To me it's obvious that my original statement stood, but to you and others I'm sure it's equally as obvious that it never had a leg to stand on.

There are some topics that I know people will for the most part dig their heels in and refuse to surrender upon. I would have never guessed Affirmative Action to be one of them. In case the message was lost somewhere along the line I'll say again that I have the same goal in mind that supporters of this law have which is to combat racism. I applaud anybody who does that even if I disagree with their method.

Just curious...is anyone still arguing that AA is not at least partially racist? If the answer is no, then I am done here.

Click to expand...

That's the position of GC and a few others. Racial discrimination isn't always racist, apparently.

So far after reading this thread my original statement still feels sound to me. You can argue that it's morally justified or needed, but you can't really argue that it isn't racist.

Click to expand...

racism requires the belief that your actions and feelings are based on some superiority of one race to the other. AA isn't based on any failings or superiorities of any race. It is based solely on the disproportionate power in our system, and the fact that many people knowingly or not are racially prejudiced. AA might still be needed if nobody in the world was racist.

AA is detrimental to many people. Even you acknowledge that. But detrimental and malicious weren't part of your definition so I'm not sure why you you're trying to link that in here.

Click to expand...

If any racial discrimination equals racism. Then innocuous discrimination equals racism. Therefore racism ceases to have any meaning that matters. Again, me hiring a black guy for a black role makes me a racist under that definition. You guys either need to admit you are wrong about that or quit debating the issue, because if you are right the issue is stupid.

Are legacy admissions also racist and detrimental? what about straight up nepotism? discrimination based on wealth/relationships/relatives, etc are as common as water. maybe you should go protest harvards legacy policy.

**i personally think this whole argument by the open racist here is really just a lot of masking for your true feelings. which are (when brought to the light) quite ugly and repulsive. look at the company you keep here...so on of the lowest scums i have ever had the displeasure of being exposed to.

racism requires power. yes you can all me discriminated against, but you can not be the victims of true racism.

its like this...the rich guy at the country club can be called names and if he goes into someone elses neighborhood, they not let him into the local hot spot (and hence he is discriminated against) but he is still the dude in control and in power...and hence incapable of being the victim of racism.

racism requires power. yes you can all me discriminated against, but you can not be the victims of true racism.

its like this...the rich guy at the country club can be called names and if he goes into someone elses neighborhood, they not let him into the local hot spot (and hence he is discriminated against) but he is still the dude in control and in power...and hence incapable of being the victim of racism.

because he still has the "world" to retreat to, that he largely lives in, where he has all advantages....because he experience a moment of discrimination he does not lose his power or control. think of it as a weekend in vegas, just negative. he still lives in idaho and has a big house, car, nice job, vacations, etc.

racism...real racism is different. it strips you of your dignity and removes opportunity and possibility, it is not a temporary discomfort.

exactly true...but the ability to remove back to a locus of control & power is the difference. a minority who is the victim of racism has no such "other" place of existence. the world is, in essence, a place where they lack control and power.

and this "trip" into a place of danger holds no real, permanent consequences.

racism requires power. yes you can all me discriminated against, but you can not be the victims of true racism.

its like this...the rich guy at the country club can be called names and if he goes into someone elses neighborhood, they not let him into the local hot spot (and hence he is discriminated against) but he is still the dude in control and in power...and hence incapable of being the victim of racism.

Click to expand...

Sorry, racism does not require power. Changing the definition because it makes you feel better isn't acceptable. If a black man is denied entry into a building because he is black, it is racist and he is being discriminated against. If a white man is denied entry into a building because he is white, it is racist, and he is being discriminated against and it doesn't matter if he is rich, or the president of the US. It's still racism.

If a white cop goes into a predominantly black neighborhood and is constantly belittle, degraded, not served food at neighborhood restaurants, ect., and all around discriminated against because he is white, this is still racism is it not? He is in a position of power, but still the victim of racism and discrimination.

I don't see how power can have anything to do with it when racism involves skin color. I will agree that racism affects the one with little or no power more though. I thought you where a teacher, do you always make up your own definitions for things when you feel it suits you?

Racism.

1. belief in or doctrine asserting racial differences in character, intelligence, etc. and the superiority of one race over another or others: racist doctrine also, typically, seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races
2. any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc., specif., such a program or practice that upholds the political or economic domination of one race over another or others
3. feelings or actions of hatred and bigotry toward a person or persons because of their race

exactly true...but the ability to remove back to a locus of control & power is the difference. a minority who is the victim of racism has no such "other" place of existence. the world is, in essence, a place where they lack control and power.

and this "trip" into a place of danger holds no real, permanent consequences.

Click to expand...

Just because he can go back home and escape further racism for the moment does not mean he wasn't a victim of racism. It just means he isn't discriminated against, and the victim of racism 24/7 and everywhere he goes.

edit:

Another example.

If a black man works his way up in a company and becomes the CEO and very wealthy, he now has money and power correct? But lets say the other CEO's (mostly white) won't accept him because he is black, and won't let him join their country club, or eat at the same places they do. This man is now a victim of racism and discrimination correct, even though he has money and power? Or are you saying that this man can not be the victim of racism?

poetkiosk posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
racism requires power. yes you can all me discriminated against, but you can not be the victims of true racism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if I'm not treated the same by a group of another color, because I am the color I am, that is not racism? I thought that was the qualifier. How very silly of me. I was not aware that Messrs Funk and Wagnel determined that there is a direct income requirement.

How much money DOES a white person need to be a racist? Or a black person, since being white is apparently the SAME as being "rich"? And, for that matter, is there a different % on some sort of sliding scale to determine WHEN someone qualifies as a "racist" on income/power alone? What jobs qualify a person to be a racist simply because they have them?

Can a hispanic person be racist against a black person, or can ONLY whites be racist? That IS question #1. IF the answer is that non-whites can be racist, THEN we need to qualifiers, I guess, in all fairness.

If I were poet, I would argue that racism requires emotion behind the act. A program such as AA cannot be racist because a program does not have hatred or disdain for a particular race. Peole can be racists. Programs cannot.

If I were poet, I would argue that racism requires emotion behind the act. A program such as AA cannot be racist because a program does not have hatred or disdain for a particular race. Peole can be racists. Programs cannot.

But I'm not poet, and I'm damn glad of it.

Click to expand...

What racism requires is obvious. It is in every definition quoted here next to the number 1. The problem is that some folks here are trying to extend the meaning to any racial discrimination, and then try to attach it to something, but then pretend it carries the weight of the first definition that requires more than just racial discrimination. It's dishonest and stupid, but there you go.

In these pages of emo argument and moral superiority, Shim makes the most sense.

ET, I think the theoretical answer is that AA will be on the books until whatever statistics are used can show that the supposed beneficiaries of AA are equal or slightly superior in the areas AA is designed to fix. But I doubt it will play out that way irl.

"That should be obvious, and incidentally I already answered his question several pages before he asked it.

AA will be used as long as race continues to be a statistically significant proxy for hardship, what the institutions are trying to consider."
Yuki
----------------------------------------------

Which is exactly why we should be focusing on POVERTY and not race, gender and ethnicity. The reason we don't focus on poverty is equally obvious and sadly it has an awful lot to do with power and political control.

The cause of poverty are varied, although it is often a product of race in a society that has pervasive, systemic prejudice against minorities. Of course, there are other causes as well, as can be seen in places like rural WV.

Then focus on solving poverty. Create good education systems for areas of poverty. I am quite familiar with West Philadelphia and I suspect that the problems there are representative of other areas. Racial discrimination is not holding them down, the chains of poverty are. Until society endorses radical solutions for these areas, we are only rewarding the kids who break free from these chains with AA and other benefits. Jack Kemp had radical ideas in the early 1980s about empowering these people and give them the tools to break these chains. If you give them a chance to escape, many of them will take it. No attempt to help any American break the chains of poverty should ever be based on the color of their skin. Every person caught in the net of poverty deserves our full support; anything less is just as wrong as actively punishing someone for the color of their skin.

All politics aside, if 2 babies were crying for food. Would you only feed the black one and not the white one? Would you only feed the white one and not the black one? It is disgusting that you guys are focusing on race to help out those in need. My God, help all of them. What is wrong with you people?

I haven't seen a single person argue for only helping minorities. Where did you read that? I totally agree, assistance should probably be based more on poverty than race. Although I would argue that addressing some of our institutionalized racism in this country would go a long way towards diminishing the poverty of many.

1) Blacks serve longer sentences in jail for the same crimes as whites.
2) Blacks make less money working the same job (on average).

Of course there are other easily identified specific examples. For examples in NYC, the fire department has very few minority fire-fighters. They have been repeatedly sued and forced to change the test to be less biased against minorities. It was in the news a couple of years ago, and yet they continue to hire mostly whites because even with all the challenges, they can't break the pervasive nepotism/racism of the department.